Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided August 2020Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG032020_01B2203

JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

What the AAO accepted

  • Judging · Director found petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.
  • Leading or critical role · Petitioner served in leading role as chief operating officer of organization with distinguished reputation.
  • Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; graduate research not implemented or recognized at top-tier level.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector found petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.
Leading or critical roleMetPetitioner served in leading role as chief operating officer of organization with distinguished reputation.
Scholarly articlesMetDirector found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; evidence considered only in final merits determination.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; decision states no need to address since three criteria met.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; decision states no need to address since three criteria met.
Final meritsNot metInsufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; graduate research not implemented or recognized at top-tier level.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.